Next, Mesereau confronted Chacon about his violation of Neverland’s confidentiality obligation by selling his story to the tabloids, and (surprisingly) Judge Melville overruled Sneddon’s objections, so Chacon answered that he wasn’t sure if he had ever signed one (trust me, he signed one!):

9 Q. When you told the jury you saw a young boy

10 on Mr. Jackson’s back, was that in the shower?

11 A. No, it was coming out, going towards his

12 house.

13 Q. Was he on his shoulders?

14 A. You know, I don’t recall if he was on his

15 shoulders or on his back, like piggybacked, yes,

16 sir.

17 Q. When you went to work at Neverland, you were

18 asked to sign a confidentiality agreement, right?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. And everybody who works at Neverland is

21 asked to sign one, right?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. And the purpose, as explained to you, was

24 that Mr. Jackson doesn’t want employees just running

25 to tabloids and telling stories, right?

26 A. Yes, sir, I believe so.

27 Q. When you went to a tabloid, you violated the

28 agreement, correct? 5250

1 MR. SNEDDON: Object, Your Honor, calls for

2 a legal conclusion.

3 THE COURT: Overruled.

4 You may answer.

5 THE WITNESS: No, sir.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You didn’t violate it all?

7 A. No, sir.

8 Q. So you thought going to a tabloid after you

9 left your employment at Neverland was perfectly

10 consistent with your confidentiality obligations to

11 Mr. Jackson, right?

12 A. I don’t think I ever signed a

13 confidentiality, sir.

14 Q. Sure about that?

15 A. I’m not for certain, but I don’t recall that

16 I ever did.

17 Q. Weren’t you asked to?

18 A. I probably was. But at that time they

19 didn’t have one for me.

20 Q. At the time you and Mr. Abdool and Ms.

21 McManus and your lawyer went to the tabloid, your

22 lawyer was trying to negotiate to get money from Mr.

23 Jackson, wasn’t he?

24 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object. Lack of

25 foundation and it assumes —

26 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At the time you and Mr.

28 Abdool and Ms. McManus and your lawyer went to a 5251

1 tabloid to give a story about Mr. Jackson, do you

2 know whether or not your lawyer was trying to

3 negotiate money from Mr. Jackson?

4 A. No, sir.

5 Q. Do you know whether or not your lawyer was

6 trying to pressure Mr. Jackson by threatening bad

7 publicity?

8 A. No, sir.

9 Q. Did you ever hear of anything like that

10 going on?

11 A. No, sir.

12 Q. Okay. So if that went on, you’d be shocked,

13 true?

14 A. Probably not, sir.

15 Q. Probably not?

16 A. I guess not, no.

17 Q. Did you ever explain to Mr. Jackson yourself

18 that you were having trouble making ends meet

19 financially?

20 A. No, sir.

21 Q. Did you explain to anyone at Neverland about

22 that before you left?

23 A. No, sir.

24 Q. All right. Without getting into any of your

25 discussions with your lawyer, who of your group

26 first went to that attorney?

27 A. Which attorney, sir?

28 Q. Ring. Mr. Ring. 5252

1 A. Who first went to Mr. Ring?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Of us?

4 Q. Of you. Excuse me, let me rephrase the

5 question. Make it clearer.

6 You, Mr. Abdool, Ms. McManus sued Mr.

7 Jackson, correct?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. You were represented by a lawyer in Santa

10 Barbara named Mr. Ring, correct?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. And he represented you throughout that

13 six-month trial that you lost, correct?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Who first approached Mr. Ring about trying

16 to get money from Mr. Jackson?

17 A. We all did, sir.

18 Q. Together?

19 A. We hired him, yes, sir.

20 Q. Okay. Do you know how you found out about

21 him?

22 A. I don’t recall, sir.

23 Q. Was he the only lawyer you talked to, or did

24 you talk to some others?

25 A. I believe he was the only one we talked to,

26 yes, sir.

27 Q. Do you recall whether you ever told anyone,

28 “Mr. Jackson promised me if I did a good job, I 5253

1 would have a job at Neverland forever”?

2 A. No, sir.

3 Q. Did he ever say anything like that to you?

4 A. No, sir.

5 Q. Did anyone who hired you at Neverland?

6 A. No, sir.

Here is his recollection of his meeting with Sneddon and Det. Birchim on April 6th, 2005:

7 Q. Okay. You met with Prosecutor Sneddon on

8 April 6th, correct?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. Was anyone else at the meeting?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. Who?

13 A. Russ Birchim.

14 Q. Where did the meeting take place?

15 A. Here in Santa Maria.

16 Q. And who arranged the meeting?

17 A. I believe it was Mr. Sneddon.

18 Q. Did he call you on the phone?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Did he tell you where to meet?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. How long was the meeting?

23 A. Probably less than an hour.

24 Q. Did you discuss anything you were going to

25 say today?

26 A. I believe so, yes, sir.

27 Q. Did Mr. Sneddon tell you what questions he

28 was going to ask you today? 5254

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. Did you tell him what answers you were going

3 to give to those questions?

4 A. No, sir.

5 Q. Did you tell him anything about how you were

6 going to respond?

7 A. I just told him that I would speak the

8 truth.

9 Q. That’s it?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. How long was the meeting?

12 A. Probably about — less than an hour.

13 Q. So during the portion of that hour that you

14 spoke, all you ever said was, “I’ll tell the truth,

15 I’ll tell the truth, I’ll tell the truth,” or words

16 to that effect?

17 A. No, sir. No, sir.

18 Q. Okay. He told you what questions he was

19 going to ask you, correct?

20 A. I believe so, yes, sir.

21 Q. You told him what your responses were going

22 to be, right?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. When was the — excuse me.

25 Before that meeting, when was the last time

26 you had met with anyone from the prosecuting office

27 here?

28 A. I didn’t meet with anybody. 5255

1 Q. Did you talk with anyone on the phone?

2 A. Yes, sir. I was —

3 Q. Who was that?

4 A. I believe it was a secretary from Mr.

5 Sneddon’s office.

6 Q. And what was that discussion about?

7 A. When I was supposed to be down here and how

8 to get — how to get to Santa Maria.

9 Q. How many meetings have you had with any

10 representative of the sheriff’s department in total

11 to talk about your testimony?

12 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

13 object as vague as to time, a time period.

14 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it.

15 THE COURT: All right.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: In the last year, how many

17 meetings have you had with anyone representing the

18 Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department to talk about

19 this case?

20 A. I haven’t, sir.

21 Q. How about phone calls?

22 A. No, sir.

Next, Chacon was questioned extensively about the alleged instances of abuse that he claimed to have witnessed. Chacon “forgot” to mention one of the instances to the Santa Barbara grand jury that he testified for in 1994, and didn’t remember until years later! (Similar to how Star Arvizo “forgot” about the third alleged time he witnessed Jackson abusing his brother, but remembered it during his cross examination.)

14 Q. The first incident you claim you saw Mr.

15 Jackson improperly touch a young man was when?

16 A. I don’t recall. Between ‘92 and ‘93, I

17 believe. I’m not for certain.

18 Q. Do you recall ever telling any

19 representative of law enforcement the month or the

20 year?

21 A. No, sir. I don’t — no.

22 Q. And what shower are you claiming Mr. Jackson

23 used when you say you looked in a shower and saw him

24 acting inappropriately?

25 A. It was the outside rest rooms by the rec

26 room.

27 Q. There were two of them, right?

28 A. Two rest rooms? 5258

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. There was a women’s and a men’s room, I’m

3 sorry.

4 Q. And which one do you claim you saw Mr.

5 Jackson in?

6 A. In the men’s room, sir.

7 Q. Had you seen him in that men’s room before?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Okay. By the way, when you went to the

10 Santa Barbara Grand Jury, you didn’t tell them

11 everything you said today, did you?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. Everything?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Did you tell them everything you’ve told Mr.

16 Sneddon?

17 A. Well, that one incident that I recalled I

18 didn’t. I didn’t bring that up, no, sir.

19 Q. How long were you in front of a Santa

20 Barbara Grand Jury?

21 A. Could have been a couple hours.

22 Q. And at some point, you called to see if

23 anybody had charged Mr. Jackson with anything,

24 didn’t you?

25 A. No, sir.

26 Q. Never asked anyone?

27 A. No, sir.

28 Q. Never asked anyone in the sheriff’s 5259

1 department?

2 A. No, sir.

3 Q. Never asked Mr. Sneddon?

4 A. No, sir.

5 Q. To this day you’ve never asked that

6 question, right?

7 A. No, sir.

Chacon was next asked about his knowledge of other former employees of Jackson who received exorbitant amounts of money from tabloids for their stories, and this was another attempt to show that the precedent for selling stories to tabloids had already been set by the other employees, and thus served as a motivation for Chacon to do the same:

8 Q. All right. When did you first learn Blanca

9 Francia had sold a story to Hard Copy?

10 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

11 object. That question has been asked and answered

12 and that assumes facts not in evidence.

13 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it.

14 THE COURT: All right.

15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn that

16 Blanca Francia had told a story for $20,000 to the

17 T.V. show Hard Copy?

18 A. No.

19 MR. SNEDDON: Object. Asked and answered.

20 THE COURT: All right. He answered it. It’s

21 “No.” Next question.

22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn she had

23 sold a story to Hard Copy, without knowing the

24 amount she got?

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. When did you learn that?

27 A. Probably on the news.

28 Q. On the news when? 5260

1 A. I don’t recall, sir. It was — it was

2 public knowledge.

3 Q. Did you see the show?

4 A. No, sir.

5 Q. Did you hear about it right after it

6 appeared on television?

7 A. No, sir.

8 Q. Were you employed when that was on

9 television?

10 A. No, sir.

11 Q. Where were you working at that point?

12 A. Where was I working? That’s a good

13 question. I believe I was already in Nevada by that

14 time.

15 Q. And what were you doing there?

16 A. I was a substitute teacher at a high school

17 and junior high.

18 Q. What year was this?

19 A. ‘96, ‘7, ‘8.

20 Q. Do you remember learning that security

21 guards at the Jackson home in Encino had sold

22 stories for $100,000?

23 A. No, sir, I didn’t know anything about that

24 place.

25 Q. Never heard anything about that?

26 A. Well, I know they had security guards, but I

27 never heard anything.

28 Q. Did you hear anything about security guards 5261

1 at the Encino home selling a story for $100,000?

2 A. No, sir.

3 Q. All right. Ever know someone named Quindoy?

4 A. I want to say that the Quindoys — I believe

5 they were chefs, I believe, but I’m not positive.

6 Q. They were what?

7 A. I believe they were cooks or chefs there at

8 some property.

9 Q. Did you know them?

10 A. No, sir.

11 Q. Ever talk to them?

12 A. No, sir.

13 Q. Did you know they had tried to sell stories

14 to tabloids about Mr. Jackson?

15 A. No, sir.

16 Q. Had you ever heard anything about that as

17 you sit here today?

18 A. Probably have, but I don’t recall.

Here are some more details from his frivolous lawsuit; Chacon claimed that he was “emotionally damaged” because he thought his phone calls had been eavesdropped upon while at Neverland. Good grief, what a wimp! Not even Janet Arvizo claimed to be “emotionally damaged” due to those alleged phone taps! You have to wonder if Janet concocted her claims of the phones being tapped by studying the Neverland Five civil case? It’s certainly plausible, considering the fact that Star Arvizo obviously copied his lie of being groped by Jackson while driving a golf cart from the Neverland Five case, and that Gavin specifically mentioned how Jordan Chandler “couldn’t stop” Jackson in his interview with Dr. Katz.

19 Q. Okay. Now, at some point you claimed you

20 were improperly subjected to electronic surveillance

21 at Neverland, right?

22 A. Could you be a little bit more specific,

23 sir?

24 Q. Sure.

25 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

26 object. I’m going to object because of the 403

27 ruling, but more specifically because there are

28 multiple defendants in the causes of action. It may 5262

1 be different as to different individuals.

2 MR. MESEREAU: I’m only talking about him,

3 Your Honor. His claims against Mr. Jackson.

4 THE COURT: I’m going to allow the question,

5 but I’m going to do so assuming it’s not related to

6 specific allegations in the Complaint, which I

7 already said you can’t directly go into.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Well, there were

9 such — there were such claims, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: I know, but we’re not

11 relitigating that issue. But he could have made a

12 claim or his attorney could have made a claim.

13 You’re asking him not about claims his attorney

14 made, but claims that he made.

15 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, I am.

16 THE COURT: I’m going to allow the question

17 with that understanding.

18 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: But you probably have to read it

20 back to him.

21 Do you remember the question?

22 MR. MESEREAU: I can rephrase it.

23 THE WITNESS: No.

24 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll withdraw it.

25 Q. Do you remember claiming that you were

26 emotionally distressed because you thought your

27 telephone conversations were listened in to at

28 Neverland? 5263

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. And you never knew whether or not there was

3 a tap on any phone, correct?

4 A. Yes, I did, sir.

5 Q. Are you saying you did know there was a tap?

6 A. Yes, sir, I knew that they had equipment

7 where they were listening in.

8 Q. Do you remember testifying under oath you

9 didn’t know if your phone was tapped?

10 A. At home or at the ranch, sir?

11 Q. Either place.

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. Did you ever state under oath you didn’t

14 know whether your phone was tapped?

15 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I object to the

16 question as vague as to place.

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You claim you had been

19 emotionally damaged because someone listened in to

20 your calls at Neverland, right?

21 A. Emotionally damaged. Well, I probably —

22 probably didn’t say that, but I was upset because

23 they were listening to my personal phone calls, sir.

24 Q. Okay. And your basis for saying that was

25 that somebody had told you that was going on, right?

26 A. No, sir, I knew it was going on.

27 Q. You had no knowledge of electronic

28 surveillance at the time, did you? 5264

1 A. Yes, sir, I did.

2 Q. Did you have a check done on the phones?

3 A. No, sir.

Here’s another shocker; Chacon testified during his deposition that he felt that Jackson should compensate him for the rest of his life! He “remembered” saying once he was presented a copy of his transcript:

10 Q. Do you remember saying you thought Mr.

11 Jackson should compensate you for the rest of your

12 life?

13 A. No, sir.

14 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to show

15 you your deposition transcript?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 THE WITNESS: Where is the beginning?

20 Oh, I must have, sir.

21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

22 look at that page in your deposition?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you

25 testified under oath that you thought Mr. Jackson

26 should compensate you for the rest of your life?

27 A. I must have said that, yes, sir, because

28 it’s on there. 5266

Here is Chacon’s recollection of several intruders that he and Kassim Abdool apprehended in the early 1990’s. One individual made it all the way to the pool area of the ranch, and a few others made it to the movie theater, which means that they had to travel several miles from the main road to get there. This is further proof of exactly why Jackson had those alarms installed just outside of his bedroom:

Under redirect examination, Sneddon attempted to discredit Jackson’s attorneys by asking Chacon if he had spoken with them prior to testifying before the grand jury, and Chacon explained that they asked to know what information he knew, but he refused to tell them.

3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. SNEDDON:

5 Q. All right. Let’s go back just for a second.

6 Mr. Chacon, were you subpoenaed to be here

7 this morning?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. You’re under subpoena?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. Did you want to come testify?

12 A. No, sir.

13 Q. When you testified before the grand jury,

14 were you under subpoena?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. Did you want to testify?

17 A. No, sir.

18 Q. Prior to your appearance before the grand

19 jury, you told the ladies and gentlemen that you met

20 with attorneys for Mr. Jackson; is that correct?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And with regard to that conversation, did

23 they want to know what you were going to say?

24 A. They did.

25 Q. And what did you tell them?

26 A. I said that I got subpoenaed, and if I got

27 subpoenaed, that I would just speak the truth, but I

28 didn’t tell them what I knew, but they wanted to 5269

1 know.

2 Q. They wanted to know, but you wouldn’t tell

3 them?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. But you told them you were going to tell the

6 grand jury the truth?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. And did you do that?

9 A. Yes, sir.

Next, Sneddon tried to give Chacon a chance to reestablish his credibility by allowing him to state that his testimony didn’t change significantly between the 1994 grand jury proceedings and the criminal trial:

10 Q. Now, with regard to Mr. Mesereau saying that

11 you added something to the events that occurred

12 yesterday when you and I were talking, do you recall

13 him asking you that question?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. The new information you provided yesterday

16 had nothing to do with the two events you’ve

17 described to the jury, had they?

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. There was nothing that changed about that,

20 was there?

21 A. No, sir.

22 Q. In fact, the event that you indicated —

23 there was — something that you remembered was

24 something you were told by another person; wasn’t

25 that correct?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. And who was that other person?

28 A. Abdool. 5270

1 Q. It was in no way connected to the testimony

2 you gave concerning the two incidents you observed?

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. Now, with regard — just so the jury has a

5 clear indication of the sequence here, you were

6 subpoenaed to appear before the Santa Barbara County

7 Grand Jury, correct?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Now, when you actually gave your statement

10 under oath, was there a line of jurors like this in

11 the room?

12 A. Back in ninety —

13 Q. ‘94, when you came in.

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Now, how long after that was it that Mr.

16 Ring became involved in the civil lawsuit? Let me

17 put it this way: After you appeared before the

18 Santa Barbara Grand Jury and gave a statement under

19 oath, do you recall that?

20 A. Oh, yes, sir.

21 Q. And you went back to work at the ranch, did

22 you not?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. And you worked at the ranch, Neverland

25 Valley Ranch, for a while before you left there,

26 correct?

27 A. Probably a month or so, or two. I’m not

28 positive. 5271

1 Q. Was it at that point that you became

2 involved in the lawsuit with Mr. Ring?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. Whose idea was it to go to the tabloid for

5 the story?

6 A. Well, we probably talked about it, but we

7 talked to Mr. Ring about it. I guess it was all of

8 us in general.

Next, Sneddon tried to attack Jackson’s credibility by asking Chacon if he received a raise before he testified for the grand jury in 1994, and Chacon confirmed that he had. This question was designed to make the jury suspicious of why Jackson would all of a sudden give raises to people who allegedly had inculpatory information against him (Sneddon essentially implied that the raises were a form of hush money).

Chacon also testified that he received verbal and physical threats after he testified for the grand jury, and that these threats are what made him file the lawsuit. In fact, Chacon claimed that he was so scared that he asked Sneddon and Det. Birchim for a gun permit!

9 Q. After you — Mr. Mesereau asked you about

10 your salary at the ranch. Do you recall that?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. And you spoke about being dissatisfied with

13 the wages that you were getting —

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. — compared to some people that had been

16 hired afterward, correct?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. After your conversations with Mr. Sanger and

19 Steve Cochran about your grand jury appearance, were

20 you offered a raise?

21 A. Yes, sir, I was.

22 Q. And it was before your testimony actually

23 occurred before the grand jury, correct?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. So it was in between the time they found out

26 you were going and the time that you actually

27 appeared they offered you a raise?

28 A. Yes, sir. 5272

1 Q. And Mr. Kassim also, right?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Actually, it’s Mr. Abdool.

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Now, during the course of the — let me ask

6 you this: After you testified before the grand jury

7 and gave your statement under oath about what you

8 saw happen on those two incidents – okay? – did you

9 receive threats?

10 A. Oh, yes, sir.

11 Q. In what form?

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; beyond the scope.

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

14 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, it’s what led to the

15 lawsuit. And counsel was allowed to go into that.

16 THE COURT: All right. With that

17 representation, I’ll change my ruling.

18 THE WITNESS: Could you —

19 MR. SNEDDON: Yes.

20 Q. You said you were threatened. In what form?

21 A. Verbally, and — well, verbally, and

22 somewhat physically by someone touching their —

23 Tony Coleman touching his weapon.

24 Q. Tony Coleman was who?

25 A. He was OSS.

26 Q. All right. Would you describe to the

27 jury — if you have to stand up, do it. Describe to

28 the jury what Mr. Coleman did. 5273

1 A. We were in the security office, and we were

2 arguing about an intruder that came in, and he

3 wanted to do it his way. And I said, “If you do it

4 that way, we’re going to” — “it’s not the

5 procedure.”

6 And then he says, “Well, I’m going to do it

7 my way because I’m here to oversee you.” And he

8 touched — he pulled his coat back and he touched

9 his weapon, and he says, “I’m in charge here.” I

10 believe that’s the words he used.

11 Q. Did he at any other time ever use his weapon

12 to indicate a threat towards you?

13 A. No, sir, that was about the first time.

14 Q. Did you ever receive any phone calls of any

15 kind that were threatening?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. Did you report those to law enforcement?

18 A. Yes, I did, sir.

19 Q. How many occasions did that occur?

20 A. Several times. One time when we first

21 started, somebody says —

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive

23 THE COURT: After “several times,” sustained.

24 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Tell us about

25 those threats that you received.

26 A. The first time I received it, they said,

27 “I’m going to kill you.”

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay. 5274

1 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, goes to the state

2 of mind and to the reason for the lawsuit.

3 THE COURT: I’m going to overrule the

4 objection as to state of mind.

5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Go ahead.

6 A. Someone called and said, “I’m going to kill

7 you,” and hung up. And then other times we had

8 calls at the house where they would either laugh or

9 wouldn’t say words, but we knew that someone was —

10 I believe it was OSS behind this.

11 Q. Did you as a result — did you take these

12 things seriously?

13 A. Oh, yes, sir.

14 Q. Did you approach anyone with regard to

15 obtaining a gun permit?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. And who did you approach?

18 A. I asked Mr. Birchim and yourself for a gun

19 permit. So I carried a concealed weapon permit for

20 about two years, I believe it was.

21 Q. You indicated that you may have asked

22 Sergeant or now Commander Birchim for money for your

23 wife —

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. — do you recall?

26 Do you remember why that was?

27 A. Yes, sir.

28 Q. Why was that? 5275

1 A. Well, my wife’s sister-in-law had just died,

2 and —

3 Q. That’s all right, I’ll withdraw the

4 question. That’s okay. It’s not important.

Next, Chacon denied being paid by Victor Gutierrez or giving him any statements (yeah, whatever!):

22 Q. Mr. Mesereau mentioned something about an

23 individual called Victor Gutierrez. Do you remember

24 that?

25 A. Yes, sir.

26 Q. Were you ever paid any money by Mr.

27 Gutierrez?

28 A. No, sir. 5277

1 Q. Did you ever give him a statement at all?

2 A. No, sir.

That isn’t true at all! Here is an excerpt from “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, in which he states that Jackson faked his broken ankle injury because he didn’t want to perform “Remember The Time” at the 1992 Soul Train Music Awards:

Two days before next getting together with Jordie Jackson received an award for Best Album for “Dangerous,” and Best Song for “Remember the Time” at the Soul Train Music Awards. At the awards show, he sang from a wheelchair, saying that he had hurt his ankle during rehearsal. But it was a publicity stunt. Upon returning to the ranch, he threw his crutches aside and began running, laughing and shouting, “It’s a miracle! It’s a miracle!” mocking the world that had believed his lie and felt sorry for him. “I picked up the crutches after Jackson threw them in the garden,” said Ralph Chacon. “At the ranch we all knew about his publicity strategies.” Jackson’s good health was verified by Jordie himself. Jackson told him he had done it to bring something different to the show.

And here’s an excerpt where he states that Jackson “trained” his pet chimpanzees to masturbate in front of guests:

Jackson’s zoo would later yield another peculiar incident involving the chimpanzees not soon to be forgotten. “Michael took us to the chimpanzee cage, ” Jordie said. “Then he grabbed between his legs and called upon the monkeys to do the same. He told me they were trained. The chimpanzees held their penises and began to play with their penises in front of us. My little sister didn’t understand what was happening, so I got her out of there. For Michael, it was fun and he told us to watch.”

Jackson’s security guards were witnesses to the fact that the children didn’t find it very amusing to watch the chimpanzees play with themselves in front of them. “Some of the kids laughed at first, but wanted to go when they continued doing it, ” said Ralph Chacon. “Michael asked them not to go and asked them if they knew what the animals were doing. The kids just shrugged their shoulders without knowing what was happening. We couldn’t do anything.”

And finally, here is Chacon’s account of seeing tampons and enemas in Jackson’s room:

Aside from the enemas and the joy they gave to the singer, Jackson had another habit that not only surprised Jordie, but also other boys and employees of the singer. “Jordie told me that he had seen Jackson insert different types of feminine hygiene products in his behind. I could hardly believe it at first,” said a friend of Jordie’s who asked to remain anonymous. “But after all of the personal things he told me about him and Jackson I have no doubt that it’s the truth.”

Adrian MacManus confirmed this account. “That is nothing new. Everyone at the ranch knew. I threw tampons in the trash after finding them on the floor in the bathroom and near his bed. They were covered with feces and blood. Imagine he used them more often than I did.” Blanca Francia also remembers Jackson’s tampons. “I think that when one is somebody’s employee they see many private things, but I never thought I would see the thing with the tampons. Now I can’t believe the stupid things I put up with to keep my job.” The male employees who saw the dirty tampons asked what was going on with their boss. “I knew that the people in Hollywood were strange and did different things than most, but I had never seen so much strange stuff in one room,” said security guard Ralph Chacon.

The singer’s continued use of enemas and tampons caused damage to his anus, which to this day causes embarrassing moments. “I was talking with Michael about something not so important,” remembers Adrian, “when he told me that he had to go to the bathroom. He didn’t take two steps when he defecated right there in front of me. It was a diarrhea that ran down to his shoes. It was a shame. The guards that saw it went to another room to have a laugh. Michael slowly hobbled to the bathroom, dirtying the floor along the way. He later brought me his clothes to clean. It made me sick. The other employees were teasing me, laughing and yelling, ‘how does it feel to be Michael Jackson’s personal assistant?’ It was very distressing.”

Here is more testimony about the OSS Neverland Security staff that allegedly terrorized the Neverland Five into filing their lawsuit, and the frivolous lawsuit that he filed without even knowing how much money he was suing Jackson for!

3 Q. You indicated that the individuals who were

4 on the ranch that were armed were called the OSS.

5 Was that their official name, or was that a name

6 that the security staff gave them?

7 A. I believe that’s — it was used for them as

8 a short title. Office of Special Services, but they

9 used it as — just call them OSS.

10 Q. And with regard to — you told the jury that

11 they interfered with you on how you did your job.

12 In what respect? I mean, what was the tension or

13 the friction between the two of you?

14 A. They just — they just interfered in every

15 aspect of our duty as security there. They would

16 break the beams, the security beams, and they would

17 cause us to run out there thinking it was an

18 intruder. They would come by and laugh, and just

19 make jokes, and/or sit out in their vehicle and

20 stare at us inside the security office.

21 Q. With regard to the lawsuit itself that Mr.

22 Mesereau has asked you a number of questions about,

23 were you ever consulted about the amount of money

24 that was going to be sued for?

25 A. No, sir.

26 Q. Whose judgment did you leave that decision?

27 A. Mr. Ring.

28 Q. Did you legit — did you feel, yourself, 5278

1 that you were entitled to some money from Mr.

2 Jackson because of the way you were treated on the

3 ranch?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Do you still feel that way?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;

8 relevance.

9 THE COURT: Sustained; stricken.

10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: You told the jury that you

11 knew that you were being — your telephones on the

12 ranch were being monitored, correct?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. How did you know that?

15 A. It was common knowledge that — in the main

16 office where Sandy Domz worked at, there was a

17 computer paper printout that — you could hear, and

18 it printed out the phone calls as they were made,

19 either going out or coming in.

In this excerpt, Sneddon once again tried to prejudice the jury into believing that the only reason Jackson won the lawsuit is because the Neverland Five were not permitted to testify about the alleged abuse that they witnessed (thus implying that Jackson didn’t want them to testify because he knew that he was guilty!) And then he finished his testimony on a funny note by asserting that everything he testified today was the truth!

20 Q. Now, just a couple of more questions.

21 With regard to the lawsuit, the trial, the

22 civil lawsuit, were you — or did you — during that

23 lawsuit, were you allowed or permitted to testify

24 concerning the incidents you told this jury about

25 this morning in that lawsuit?

26 A. No, sir. As a matter of fact, the judge

27 said if I — if we —

28 Q. You just weren’t allowed to? 5279

1 A. No, sir.

2 Q. Okay. Mr. Chacon, is there anything that

3 you’ve told this jury this morning about what you

4 saw out there on those two incidents that is

5 anything but the truth?

6 A. It’s the truth, sir.

7 MR. SNEDDON: No further questions.

Under recross-examination, Mesereau caught Chacon in yet another discrepancy; he just testified a few minutes earlier that he had no idea how much money his lawyer had asked for, yet he also confirmed that he said that $16 million dollars wasn’t enough money for him!

And he once again confirmed that he claimed that he wanted money from Jackson for being stared at just for the sake of saying it!

9 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

10 BY MR. MESEREAU:

11 Q. Mr. Chacon, the prosecutor has just asked

12 you to talk about problems you had with the OSS,

13 right?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. And the OSS was a nickname someone developed

16 to call Mr. Jackson’s personal bodyguards?

17 A. They themselves, sir.

18 Q. You wanted money to be awarded to you from a

19 Santa Maria jury because of your problems with the

20 personal security guards of Mr. Jackson, correct?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. Your claims were rejected, true?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. You also claimed at the time $16 million

25 wasn’t enough for you, right?

26 A. I probably did, sir. Yes, sir.

27 Q. The prosecutor just asked you if you knew

28 anything about the amounts you were seeking, and of 5280

1 course you did, right?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. You wanted money because you claim that

4 people were calling your home and hanging up,

5 correct?

6 A. That was part of it, sir, yes, sir.

7 Q. And a Santa Maria jury rejected that claim,

8 correct?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. You said that someone named Coleman had put

11 his hand on his gun because he didn’t like the way

12 you wanted to handle an intruder; is that correct?

13 A. No, because he wanted to handle it.

14 Q. He was a personal security guard, correct?

15 A. OSS. Not a security guard.

16 Q. He was carrying a — well, this group you

17 call the OSS, they’re bodyguards for Mr. Jackson,

18 right?

19 A. Yes, sir, they are.

20 Q. And they were carrying weapons, correct?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And he was concerned about the intruder,

23 correct?

24 A. No, sir.

25 Q. You sued also claiming you should get money

26 because of what Mr. Coleman did on that day,

27 correct?

28 A. He threatened me, yes, sir. 5281

1 Q. And that was rejected by a Santa Maria jury

2 as well, correct?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And you wanted money because you said Mr.

5 Jackson stared at you on occasion, correct?

6 A. No, sir.

7 Q. Why did you say it?

8 A. Just to say it.

9 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

10 MR. SNEDDON: No questions, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may

12 step down.

13 Call your next witness.

14 MR. ZONEN: Call Adrian McManus to the

15 stand.

Summary of Ralph Chacon’s Testimony

1. Ralph Chacon began working at Neverland in 1991, and quit in 1994. He worked in security, and was responsible for securing the property, front gate, fence lines, etc.

2. In 1994, Chacon was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury that was impaneled to investigate child abuse charges against Jackson. Although he did not testify, he did make a sworn statement under oath to Sneddon and Det. Birchim in which he stated that, in the early 1990’s, he observed Jackson engaging in inappropriate conduct with Brett Barnes. However, his story changed, and during the trial he testified that it was Jordan Chandler that he witnessed being abused by Jackson!

3. Chacon claimed that he saw Jackson and Jordan Chandler heading towards a Jacuzzi while working the nightshift. They were there alone for a while, and he heard them talking and laughing with each other. According to Chacon, Jackson and Jordan Chandler then went into a rest room and did not come until 35 or 40 minutes later. He walked over to the rest room area and heard them showering together, and walked away, but then decided to go back and investigate.

4. As he returned to the area just outside of the rec room, he claims to have observed Jackson and Jordan Chandler were standing together, in the nude, with Jackson kissing and caressing Jordan, and eventually performing oral sex on Jordan. And instead of busting through the door to put a stop to this heinous act, instead Chacon just left without saying or doing anything to stop it!

5. One easy way to know that Chacon is pulling this story straight out of his ass is the fact that Jordan Chandler NEVER claimed to have been abused at Neverland! Here is an analysis of his interview with Dr. Richard Gardner on October 6th, 1993 from MJJ Justice Project. The transcript of Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner is included, and in it you’ll clearly see that he never claimed that any misconduct occurred at Neverland, and in his so-called “declaration” (which is legally different than a deposition!), he made no mention of abuse at Neverland. You can download Jordan’s declaration here , and you can read this post and this post to learn about the legal differences between a deposition and a declaration.

6. Chacon then stated that there was a second incident in which he observed Jackson putting his hand down Jordan’s shorts into his crotch area. When asked by Sneddon how long he thought this incident occurred, Chacon gave what is probably the widest margin of estimated time in the history of testimonies in the United States! He estimated that the incident lasted between 10 SECONDS and 20 MINUTES!!!!!

7. Mesereau began his cross examination by questioning Chacon about his frivolous lawsuit against Jackson, in which he and the other four Neverland employees sued Jackson for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and sexual harassment. Jackson countersued and claimed that they had stolen property from him, and not only did Jackson win, but the Neverland Five were ordered to pay his legal fees of $1,473,117.61, and as a result a everyone except for Adrian McManus had to file bankruptcy!

Specifically, Chacon was found by the jury to have stolen property from Jackson and a $25,000 dollar judgment was held against him for the value of the stolen property. Additionally, he was found to have acted with fraud, oppression, and malice against Jackson (which Chacon agreed with!)

8. During the discovery process of the civil lawsuit, Chacon was evaluated by a therapist, and Chacon told the therapist that he would rather get a million dollars from Jackson then work! He was asked by Mesereau if he had filed for disability, but he stated that he “thought” it was just unemployment compensation.

9. Mesereau caught Chacon in yet another lie when he questioned Chacon about his knowledge of the amount of money he sued Jackson for. Earlier, Chacon stated that he didn’t know that his lawyer asked for $16 million dollars in his lawsuit, but Mesereau impeached him with his deposition from that lawsuit, in which not only did he state that he understood that it was $16 million dollars, but he didn’t think that was enough money for him!

10. This should come as no surprise, based on what you’ve already read so far about Chacon, but during his employment at Neverland his wages were garnished for failure to pay child support! Mesereau introduced this evidence to show that Chacon had a definite financial motive to frivolously sue Jackson for millions of dollars.

11. Chacon was so pathetic that he asked Det. Birchim for money, although he could not “remember” doing so. Mesereau also attempted to ask Chacon about a lawsuit he filed against a company called Commercial Trade, and a judgment against him for a few thousand dollars from another judge in order to establish Chacon’s financial motive, but Judge Melville sustained Sneddon’s foundation objections. However, once Mesereau was able to establish the foundation, he asked Chacon about the $2,600 dollar judgment against him by Judge Byrd, and he denied knowing anything about it. Typical.

12. Chacon claimed that he didn’t know that certain Neverland employees had sold their stories to tabloids, but he admitted the he, Adrian McManus, and Kassim Abdool each sold stories to The Sun tabloid at the advice of their attorney Michael Ring, in order to help pay their legal fees. This is direct contradiction to his earlier direct testimony where he stated that he didn’t talk to anyone about what he saw except for Kassim Abdool.

13. When Mesereau questioned Chacon about his statements to his landlord Linda Allen, who he told he would be doing an interview with Hard Copy and would buy a new Mercedes Benz luxury car with the millions of dollars that he would get from Jackson, Chacon denied all of it!

14. When Chacon was questioned about the stories that he sold to the Splash tabloid, and he couldn’t “remember” the circumstances of how his desire to sell those stories originated, Mesereau wisely reminded him that he remembered the alleged abuse that he claimed to witness, in spite of the long passage of time, and since he couldn’t remember the circumstances under which he sold the story, then how could his memory of the actual abuse be considered credible? His tabloid stories were based on the abuse that he allegedly witnessed!

15. Chacon testified that his story had changed throughout the years, and that he had “remembered” some details (along with Kassim Abdool) about Jackson’s abuse that had been “forgotten” in 1993! Unbelievable! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is one of Sneddon’s star witnesses against Jackson!

16. As further proof of how frivolous Chacon’s lawsuit was, during his deposition he testified that he was entitled to money because he was stared at “all the time” by Jackson! (That quote reminds me of Jackson’s “all the time” ad libs at the end of “Liberian Girl”.) When asked why he said it (after seeing the transcript of his deposition, of course!), he said it’s because he just wanted to say it!

17. Here’s another of Chacon’s financial desperation, which surely motivated him to file his frivolous lawsuit: during his deposition, he testified that he was upset that he was only getting paid $9 dollars an hour, while there were new security guards who earned a whopping $12 dollars an hour! What an injustice! I’m sure that extra $3 dollars an hours would have went a long way for him!

18. Chacon was questioned extensively about the alleged instances of abuse that he claimed to have witnessed. Chacon “forgot” to mention one of the instances to the Santa Barbara grand jury that he testified for in 1994, and didn’t remember until years later! (Similar to how Star Arvizo “forgot” about the third alleged time he witnessed Jackson abusing his brother, but remembered it during his cross examination)

19. Mesereau questioned Chacon about some additional details from his frivolous lawsuit; Chacon claimed that he was “emotionally damaged” because he thought his phone calls had been eavesdropped upon while at Neverland. Good grief, what a wimp! Not even Janet Arvizo claimed to be “emotionally damaged” due to those alleged phone taps! You have to wonder if Janet concocted her claims of the phones being tapped by studying the Neverland Five civil case? That wouldn’t be too far-fetched, since we know that the Arvizos studied the Chandler case because Gavin specifically mentioned how Jordan Chandler “couldn’t stop” Jackson in his interview with Dr. Katz.

20. Under redirect examination, Sneddon tried to attack Jackson’s credibility by asking Chacon if he received a raise before he testified for the grand jury in 1994, and Chacon confirmed that he had. This question was designed to make the jury suspicious of why Jackson would all of a sudden give raises to people who allegedly had inculpatory information against him (Sneddon essentially implied that the raises were a form of hush money). Chacon also testified that he received verbal and physical threats after he testified for the grand jury, and that these threats are what made him file the lawsuit. In fact, Chacon claimed that he was so scared that he asked Sneddon and Det. Birchim for a gun permit!

21. Sneddon once again tried to prejudice the jury into believing that the only reason Jackson won the lawsuit is because the Neverland Five were not permitted to testify about the alleged abuse that they witnessed (thus implying that Jackson didn’t want them to testify because he knew that he was guilty!) And then he finished his testimony on a funny note by asserting that everything he testified today was the truth!

22. Mesereau cleaned Chacon’s clock under recross examination by having him admit that he said he wanted money for being stared at by Jackson just for the sake of saying it! After this admission, Mesereau had no further questions, and Sneddon declined to further question Chacon.

Chacon’s cross-examination pretty much proves that the story he told under oath at trial was a flat out lie. How were these people able to commit perjury like this and have nothing happen to them? It’s amazing.

Jordan DID say that the molestation happened at Neverland. It’s on page 26 of the Gardener interview.
From the interview:
“G. So he put his mouth on your penis?
J. Yes. Then, um, from that point, till the end of our relationship, he masturbated me with his mouth. And that’s as far as it went.
G. About how many occasions did he do that?
J. I don’t know but I can tell you where.
G. Where did it take place?
J. At my father’s house, his Hideout, my mother’s house, and Neverland.”

@Aldebaranredstar
Thanks for the correction! I think that most fans focus mostly on Jordan’s declaration, in which he stated he was abused overseas and in Vegas, but there’s also his interview, which you wisely remembered. You have a great memory!

The “interview” that you mention can be found in WHOLE- anywhere? With beginning and end notes by the psychhologist ? If I remember correctly – only bits of it are available on Ray Chandler’s mjfacts site. Why would such an important bit of informaton be left out of the formal declaration? Every bit of salaciousness from the interview was included in the declaration but not “Neverland” The source of that “interview” snippet is highly suspect.

I agree that it is highly suspect, to put it mildly, and we don’t know how authentic it is, considering that it was the one and only Ray Chandler who first presented it to the world in 2004. It is very shallow and inconsistent, and there are material discrepancies between the interview and his subsequent “declaration” (more like a script!).

When I asked about the WHOLE interview I meant the complete form that this Dr.Gardner would have had to fill while evaluating Jordan … whatever this is that has been posted on mjfacts is not a COMPLETE…evaluation as required by mental health professionals and that is why it is dubious at best. When you say its “reprinted in full” do you mean it’s as complete as what is posted on this website?

Thanks for clearing that up. When I said “reprinted in full”, I meant that the transcript of Jordan’s interview was reprinted, but not any of Dr. Gardner’s thoughts or evaluations. I personally don’t think that interview is worth the paper it’s printed on because Ray Chandler is the source, and we don’t know if it’s even authentic, or if it’s doctored, or what he intentionally omitted and/or altered. I just take it “as is” and use it against the Chandlers for the sake of MJ’s vindication. Unfortunately there’s no way to know what’s missing or altered in that “interview”.

I dont remember Sneddon asking June anything about JC ever saying if he showered near the arcade one evening or any of the other stuff Chacon is saying..You might think he would have wanted to tie that into Junes testimony, but no…Probably because it started out as another child and morphed into JC..
Again, all this shows me is that Sneddon knew this was all baloney..ugh

What is with all those feces stories with Victor…? Some relation to sodomy, I’m guessing? The hell? Did he not care to make these stories seem reasonable?

Not to mention he couldn’t remember asking Birchim for the money/gun permit when Mesereau asked him about it, but as soon as Sneddon asked him, the memory was right there and he started gushing forwards about it all, so much so that Sneddon withdrew the question.

What is with all those feces stories with Victor…? Some relation to sodomy, I’m guessing? The hell? Did he not care to make these stories seem reasonable?

Um Yes you are right. I have never talked about it before because it is not something that was commonly known outside the medical community.It is actually these stories that told me that Gutierrez is most likely a pedophile that had been abused himself. However earlier “evidence” has been proven untrue,but Gutierrez wouldn’t know that.
I think what he was trying to imply is an old wives tale that something called encopresis is a sign of child molestaion.Encopresis is frequently associated with constipation and fecal impaction. Often, hard fecal material remains in the colon, and the child only passes a soft or semiliquid stool around the impacted stool. Leakage of stool may occur during the day or night. There are rarely physical causes other than constipation (sometimes present since infancy).Other causes may be related to:A lack of toilet training,toilet training at too early an age,Emotional disturbance such as oppositional defiant disorder and Conduct disorder.
Whatever the cause, the child may develop associated shame, guilt, or loss of self-esteem. The child may try to hide the discovery of the problem. The increased risk associated with encopresis are: Being male,Chronic constipation and Low socioeconomic status. The symptoms of encopresis include:Inability to retain feces (bowel incontinence),Passing stool in inappropriate places (generally in the child’s clothes),Secretive behavior associated with bowel movements,Constipation and hard stools and the occasional passage of very a large stool that almost blocks up the toilet.
Early medical literature said that there would be long term effects to the anal sphincter when a child was sodomized that would lead to encopresis. However more recent literature takes into account the ability of the anal sphincter to dialate when passing a large bolus of feces so chronic findings are considered inaccurate due to the many variables and a newer understanding of the ability of the human body to accomodate.The earlier literature also did not take into account that many of the signs that they thought could be attributed to sodomy are in fact found at an equal rate in non abused children.
Acute findings would be different and would be easily visualized externally.Any permanent damage to the anal sphincter is found in children that were very young (0-6 years of age) at the age of the rape.
There is also the psychological component called coprophelia that he hints at as well.The tendency toward being what is termed a coprophiliac may be manifested in a number of ways that range from sexual obsession with actual fecal matter to simply telling jokes that revolve around it down to having a certain four letter word being their profanity of obsessive choice. Those not yet ready to make the leap toward getting up and close and personal with feces may compensate by having an unnatural attraction to dirt and mud.
This is all Freudian hypothesis which I do not follow. Freud did what he could when he could do it but more recent psychiatry is more bio neurological which is more accurate and accounts for the ability of chemicals to treat a chemical imbalance in the brain. Freud is now considered psychological instead of psychiatric.
I would say that the stories that Gutierrez has about feces are meant to go in that direction or lead his readers in a common homophobic misunderstanding. Why do you think they went after pictures of MJ’s anus when they were photographing him? It was because of what this man told them about MJ and Brett.It was because of this old wives tale and a common old homophobic belief which is exactly what the whole feces thing is.
It is because of this that I know that the story about Jordan and all the other boys coming from the mouths of the Neverland Five were not from them but to them before Gutierrez had ever met them in that lawyers office. They were told what to say and they were told what to say by Gutierrez. Gutierrez leaves his own psychological “fingerprints” in every story that is connected to him.